Talk:Ariane
Would this count as cannon Sheryl Chee talking about Finn and Ariane: "Finn took it to mean that he was going to die, but he was wrong. What the statue saw was that Finn would not return to the tower to speak with her. I always saw Finn and Ariane as a duo. After Witch Hunt, they go off together and have fun little adventures." source: http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/4745947%26lf%3D8#4752849 --Galith (talk) 23:19, October 17, 2010 (UTC) Am I the only person who finds Ariane to be totally awesome? She is one of my favorite characters in the DA universe. I like her much better than anyone in Awakenings. Most of those characters I could not stand to be around including Wynne. Too bad we don't get to know her more. She is even better to be around if you are a Dalish.--Diosprometheus (talk) 00:20, September 23, 2010 (UTC) Rune slots Are her weapons and armor even supposed to have rune slots? I can't find a mention of this anywhere. Prismvg (talk) 21:05, September 20, 2010 (UTC) Her weapons and armor come without rune slots, but I was able to get them to appear by selling them to Sandal and leaving them there for awhile. The problem is that I was only able to do this one time and I was playing as a rogue. I have tried every trick I know to get them to appear again on XBox without success. I conclude that the chances of getting them to appear are very slim. I have never gotten them to appear as a mage or a warrior. Chances are that you will play the whole game without them every appearing even though the type of tier suggest that they should have the slots.--Diosprometheus (talk) 00:14, September 23, 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: I have now gotten rune slots for her stuff a second time. It happened after doing a reload after getting the slotless dragonbone cudgel and returning to the Mages tower. This time was with a warrior warden. I am not sure but this might have happened the first time I got the slots as I remember thinking it was kind of late in the game for the slots to appear.--Diosprometheus (talk) 04:27, September 23, 2010 (UTC) Well it seems to me that this is rather an exploit, and the fact that it gets rune slots is actually the bug. Plus, it's only been your case until now. So that bit of info should be removed until further notice. Prismvg (talk) 08:11, September 23, 2010 (UTC) How is doing a reload an exploit? Don't be ridiculous. This is no different than if you stopped playing the game at this point, did a save and reloaded it when you started to play it again. Nor is going back to the Mages tower an exploit as the game allows you to do so, and there is no certainty that that had anything to do with the rune slots appearing. Surely you are not saying something should be removed because it is part of a discussion or because it can be done? I don't know if it is a bug and neither do you. What seems to me to be the bug is that her stuff should have the slots as Ageless should have had them and that it is so hard to get them to appear. (Ageless had a simple fix that can be found here.) The fact is that it can be done and I have done it twice now on XBox. I have no doubt that I will be able to do again if I ever play WH which was a major disappointment to me. People who are interested in this stuff should be allowed to hear from others about their experiences and you should appreciate that as well as I do. And in case you don't know weapons that you sell to merchants often tier up and get rune slots so how is the expectation of this being the case here any different from those? And for the record I have had other weapons that initally did not have rune slots suddenly have them after I stopped playing the game and did a reload. I guess you consider that an exploit too? --Diosprometheus (talk) 17:50, September 23, 2010 (UTC) I didn't say that reloading was an exploit. I didn't say anything is surely an exploit. I said that selling an item, running around, coming back, or whatever, then buying it back so that it changes it's original specs is rather an exploit than a bug. Please take into account that you posted that info in the Bugs section. For that, two things must happen, in this particular case: first, one should be sure that it is a bug and not something else; second, more than one player should report this. I'm not saying you're wrong or lying, but no one else has reported this supposed bug. So, as I said, until we get further info, we should refrain from posting issues from a single particular playthrough (and by that I mean one player's playthrough, I did aknowledge that you encountered this twice) in the main article, and more so in a section that they don't really belong to. If you want players to know of this they can either check the talk page or you can go ahead and make a forum post. Should it be confirmed by other users, then you can add a note in that armor's/weapon's article. Prismvg (talk) 18:17, September 23, 2010 (UTC) Your facts are wrong. In this second case I didn't sell her stuff back to the merchant. I simply returned to the tower, sold the Dragonbone Cudgel and did a reload. I didn't sell her stuff then as I had it on her and had given up any expectations that the runes would appear. I was attempting to put the slots in the D C, not in her stuff, and that failed. So now you are saying selling to a merchant and buying back something that tiers up is an exploit? That's absurd since the game does this all the time. If that is an exploit the whole game is then, regardless if you run around or not. The game will tier up stuff simply if you have a different character look into the Warden's chest on XBox as I have checked this many times, and it will also tier stuff down. It depends on who is doing the checking. It tiers stuff when you do a reload. You must have a narrow definition of an exploit, and since your language is weak to described this so-called exploit you are not sure yourself if it is or not. I use this so called "exploit" all the time when I am a young warden in Ostagar because better stuff means a better game. I frankly find the game boring if you play it as a straight line and have gotten over that after 20 or more plays of it. I play it sideways now. Since you are obviously mostly a PC player do you also consider adding mods and such exploits? To me that is one of the major reasons to continue to play the buggier PC version. An XBox player might consider having two rangers as an exploit since that is not allowed in that system. On PC I have had two rangers and an animated dead in addition to the four in the group chewing on darkspawn, something Bioware was not able to do with either Awakenings or DA until GOA for XBox. An XBox user might consider that an exploit. Last time I checked I have as much right to post here as you do and expect that you would respect my rights to do so It is also obvious to me that your original post in this section was not a serious one by the contempt you have treated my respectful answer to you. Also last time I checked this was a discussion section not a bug section. I don't recall posting in a bug section here. I suppose your are referencing what I posted in Witch Hunt which you have obviously removed for your own selfish reasons instead of moving it to trivia. Don't like what I say to you. The truth hurts. By the way, I think you are calling me a liar since you brought that up in your response when it was not necessary to do so. Well I am neither wrong nor a liar as you insulting and underhandedly implied in your post to me. Why else did your bring that insult to the discussion if you were not attempting to call me those things? That statement was not even an issue until you brought it up in your previous and convoluted answer.--Diosprometheus (talk) 19:33, September 23, 2010 (UTC) You're calling me selfish, put words in my mouth (or rather keyboard) and say the "truth hurts" me, and still I am the one not being respectful and insulting. Very well. You got stuck on discussing my view regarding a certain category of "exploits", even if I had not firmly cataloged a particular action as an exploit, and refused to understand my point of view regarding the adding of content, which was actually the point. I respect every user's right to post information here, but more than that I respect this Wiki's policy regarding content. In this instance, I considered that material posted in one article (in this case, two - Witch Hunt and Ariane) did not respect the policy, because it described an in-game occurence that happened to only one player (until then) and was not considered a general or even casual instance on how the game was expected to perform or had actually performed. Also, I did not think the content was placed in an appropiate section. As such, I removed the content until an agreement on the matter would be reached on the talk page of that article. I presented my opinion on the matter, with arguments regarding said policy. You considered you had to present yours by describing your view on my behaviour, opinion of other users and motivation on editing content. Reaching an agreement is pretty hard in these circumstances. Now, to make a few points clear: 1)I do not consider selling or reloading, by itself, an exploit, nor have I said that; 2)Whether or not I am correct about my views on marginal exploits is totally beside the point (hate to repeat it again and again, the point is when and where one adds content) 3)Yes, I am PC player, and no, I do not use mods or exploits for Dragon Age; I apologize if you felt my responses were disrespectful, because they were not intended to be this way. Prismvg (talk) 20:41, September 23, 2010 (UTC) Again you obfuscate what you actually said and did with the facts and now you accuse me of misunderstanding your point and being disrespectful of you. I am not the one that implied your were a liar or wrong. You can eat those words as you should. You cite policy where I cited facts that I encountered in the game as I played. I did that initially and I added facts as more became apparent. You can reject them or not but they are still facts for XBox. Short of pictures of the runes in her stuff you will continue to imply that I have lied and am wrong. I don't believe you have ever made an attempt to negotiate a compromise with me about this recent concern of yours until now and not with the harm done from your ill use of language. Now you say we are beyond a compromise. Really? Have you ever sent me anything regarding your concerns in your attempt to make my posting conform to your understanding of what you say is policy? How is stating that Ariane's armor comes without runes a violation of policy anyway? That is either a fact or not a fact. It is not a policy issue. You continue to use some kind of twisted logic to justify your self-righteous purge of anything that doesn't conform to your understanding of policy. I am sorry I am not buying your convolutions of thought and language. The issue here is: does the armor have runes slots or not? That answer is yes it does but they are hard to get. I might have posted that stuff about the pronunciation of Arlathan in the wrong section. It looks to me like it should have gone under trivia instead, but don't you think it would have been more helpful on your part to point that out to me instead of violating my contributions to the DAW? Don't say you have ever brought this to my attention before because you didn't. You only brought this up here in this discussion group after the fact that you removed my contributions based on your collectivist ideology of we vs I. The group thinker always hides behind the word we even if he is just one. The issue here is not whether you think something is so or not but whether others have a right to post things without your censoring attempts on the belief that only one person has had this experience or not. There are better ways to handle these disagreements and you have failed to do that in my case. I am neither wrong nor a liar but you are a purger of useful information. I do not accept your apology as it is not genuine but false as is obvious from your distortions and convolutions.--Diosprometheus (talk) 21:29, September 23, 2010 (UTC) :Diosprometheus, editors are expected to assume good faith. Saying you believe that Prismvg's apology is false does not show that. Just as any editor is entitled to add information that they believe benefits the site, so too is any editor entitled to remove information they feel does not benefit the site. :Perhaps this situation has been worsened by the fact that there is not a hard and fast rule for how to deal with bugs. This is something I would like to address and one of the points I would like to add is that bugs/exploits should be confirmed by multiple users before it is added to the main page. I'm willing to leave the information in until a bug guideline can be introduced, but it may be subject to removal afterwards. 02:52, September 27, 2010 (UTC) I don't believe the apology is genuine and since Prismvg complained to you about this affair without taking any of the responsiblity for the course of the discussion and continues to advocate for the removal of a statement of fact I am certain that it wasn't. See my detailed reply on your talk page.--Diosprometheus (talk) 18:54, September 27, 2010 (UTC)